New essay: A big-tent or small-tent AI safety movement? The unstated disagreement that underpins safety debates Two narratives about AI safety have emerged: either AI existential risk is real and imminent, or AI leaders’ and whistleblowers’ claims to that effect are insincere — a “psyop” or hype or a twisted form of regulatory capture. Few have considered the third possibility that x-risk warnings are sincere but simply wrong and counterproductive to AI safety. It’s as if everyone takes for granted that those raising the alarm are geniuses, and the only question is whether they’re the benevolent or the evil kind of genius. We subscribe to neither narrative. In our writing on AI safety, @sayashk and I consistently tried to take the arguments seriously but rebut the many claims we think are unsound while highlighting safety concerns that we think are real. This essay is a continuation of that agenda. Sections - It is true that we systematically underinvest in resilience against catastrophic and systemic risks - The Coxon incident shows how the warped media environment elevates x-risk over more grounded concerns - Why the x-risk framing may be counterproductive for AI safety policy - Conclusion: a big tent or small tent AI safety movement?